Helmets: Should you wear one?

[Tynan]

don't think anyone is arguing for compulsion are they?

doubtless you only fell off because you were wearing a helmet, you'd have been fine in a woolly hat

 

[Brixtonfixed]

don't think anyone is arguing for compulsion are they?



doubtless you only fell off because you were wearing a helmet, you'd have been fine in a woolly hat

No -- but it was a question in the OP (I'm late to this thread).

And yes, if I'd just been wearing just me flimsy cycling cap, its invisible invincibility field would doubtless have saved the day...

 

[Brock]

'a fashion accessory which will increase my chance of head impact'

don't wear one, fine, your head but ffs don't make up crap like that

I'm not making it up, I'm assuming that if my head is in effect a good inch or two wider due to covering it in polystyrene , as well as being slightly heavier, the chances of it connecting with the road when I fall over are significantly increased. Also subconscious risk compensation will almost certainly make me cycle more dangerously. So I think I can say wearing a helmet will increase my chance of cranial impact.
Anyway, why shouldn't I make 'crap' up? It seems to be the done thing in helmet threads.

 

[HJ]

If the insurance company can prove that injuries would be less had a helmet been worn then they might be able to reduce damages, regardless of there being no legal requirement to wear one. They probably can't prove that, and in any case it is probably a ploy to try to settle outside of court.

The injuries would have happened at all if the drive had not hit the cyclist, (or in this case the driver had stopped his passenger open their door and yes the driver is responsible that is why there is a legal requirement for cars to be fitted with door mirrors) therefore the cyclist can not be contributorily negligent!! Wearing helmet does not stop cars from hitting you.

 

[Tynan]

'a fashion accessory which will increase my chance of head impact'

don't wear one, fine, your head but ffs don't make up crap like that

I'm not making it up, I'm assuming that if my head is in effect a good inch or two wider due to covering it in polystyrene , as well as being slightly heavier, the chances of it connecting with the road when I fall over are significantly increased. Also subconscious risk compensation will almost certainly make me cycle more dangerously. So I think I can say wearing a helmet will increase my chance of cranial impact.
Anyway, why shouldn't I make 'crap' up? It seems to be the done thing in helmet threads.[/QUOTE]

yeah right, whatever

 

[Brixtonfixed]

"Subsconscious risk compensation will almost certainly make me ride more dangerously?" I *so* don't buy that.

I ride with a constant set of subconscious assumptions like 'falling off is to going to hurt', 'all vehicles are potentially dangerous', etc. Whether or not I'm wearing a helmet has no bearing whatsoever on these. A car that's going to turn left on you is life-threatening whether you are wearing a skinsuit or a downhiller's body armour!

 

[alfablue]

I'm not making it up, I'm assuming that if my head is in effect a good inch or two wider due to covering it in polystyrene , as well as being slightly heavier, the chances of it connecting with the road when I fall over are significantly increased. Also subconscious risk compensation will almost certainly make me cycle more dangerously. So I think I can say wearing a helmet will increase my chance of cranial impact.
Anyway, why shouldn't I make 'crap' up? It seems to be the done thing in helmet threads.

I buy the risk compensation effect but I am not sure this would be an effect that continues at the same level for all time.

I do not really buy the more chance of head hitting road because the helmet is wider thing. In most falls so the head makes it's way in the direction of the road, it is not likely that the force is at a level that the head dramatically stops short by 1 inch. If it was, the impact then created by the additional 1 inch of polystyrene is going to be extremely light and of negligeable effect.

More than likely there is plenty of force to make the neck extend and the head hit the road hard. The polystyrene will to some extent dissipate the energy of the impact so that less is transmitted to brain and skull.

Where the helmet width could be a problem is perhaps in incidents such as underestimating helmet height when ducking branches, so contact is made - more chance the neck will suffer in such circumstances, but on balance would more people estimate correctly than not? I reckon so. Of course if you aren't confident in your proprioceptive ability, then all aspects of road use are going to get risky.

 

[Peyote]

I thought 'Risk Compensation Theory' was an accepted occurance these days? It crops up in all areas from using PPE in hazardous working environments to riding a bike with helmet, Hi-Viz etc... Personally I really notice it when I'm riding off-road wearing body-armour, and not wearing body-armour!

I'm surprised there are people still denying it exists!

 

[Brixtonfixed]

I'm sure risk compensation exists in all sorts of areas. I certainly did it the one time I rode my motorcycle in shorts and sandals. It just doesn't exist for me in relation to bicycle helmets, because the injuries and risk I subconsciously fear most whilst cycling are mostly to do with the rest of my body, which is clad in flimsy Lycra.

If I cycled wearing one of those exoskeleton-style deep-sea pressure suits, I'd be sure to ride like a courier who had just been told he had 12 hours to live.

 

[alfablue]

I thought 'Risk Compensation Theory' was an accepted occurance these days? It crops up in all areas from using PPE in hazardous working environments to riding a bike with helmet, Hi-Viz etc... Personally I really notice it when I'm riding off-road wearing body-armour, and not wearing body-armour!

I'm surprised there are people still denying it exists!

Well I do buy risk compensation theory, I am just wondering if the effect diminishes over time, for example, I have been using helmets on every ride for the past 10 years and during that time have had several falls, one resulting in a 7 week hospital stay, so I reckon any extra risk I may have been taking may well have diminished over time, especially with my scrapes reinstating any caution I had lost.

 

[Peyote]

Ah, Okay. Sorry Guys, I guess we're talking about differing degrees of compensation then.

I guess you could also postulate that no-one is in a good position to judge how much compensation they put in place because it all happens at a subconscious level. Be interesting to see if any research has been done into it....


<wanders off to Google 'Risk Compensation'>

 

[alfablue]

Yes a good area for research, though I imagine it would be extremely difficult to measure any ongoing / long term effects, far easier to measure a one off effect due to some identifiable change. Let us know if you find anything.

 

[Peyote]

Let us know if you find anything.

Ha ha, well whadyaknow, all the evidence I've looked at so far has inconclusive results!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12810738&dopt=Citation

This is a good one:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme1/bicyclehelmetsreviewofeffect4726?page=11

I particularly like this quote:

"In terms of tone, the bicycle helmet debate can best be described as sour and tetchy. Neither side seems willing to concede that there can be alternative points of view. Both sides can descend into language that reflects little credit for either, for instance, expressions such as irresponsible zealots who oppose legislation find their counterpart in helmet advocates dismissed as do gooders and mandarins of health promotion. This can be disappointing for those seeking enlightenment from the debate."



It looks like there are no definite answers out there I'm afraid Alfablue, so I'm going to fall back on my usual stance which is "Look at the evidence out there and make an informed decision based on that". I don't reckon anyone can argue with that!

 

[gbb]

Apologies if this has already been asked...but has anyone...ever...ever had the 'contributary negligence' for not wearing a helmet arguement thrown at them after an accident or in the course of a claim.

We (well, not me..but plenty here) all talk about it...but does it really exist, or is it an false arguement put up by the compulsionists to back their case.

For my part, i wear sometimes, and sometimes dont. Theres no logic in my decision.
The times i probably should wear, riding in town to work etc...i never wear.
When riding further afield, in the countryside, i usually wear, despite the fact theres infinately less traffic to encounter. No logic, no sense.

I actually find myself wearing less and less. I'm considering getting a better looking helmet...perhaps then, i'll wear one more often. Personally, i prefer to think its better to have some protection than none.

 

[Yer Maw Mate Yer Maw]

Helmets are a pain in the butt if the truth be know they make you hot, sweaty and they look out of place to everything else.

I myself wear one because there is a right lot of nutters out on the road that don't really care about cyclists, I had a bad fall a few months ago the first one in 15yrs on the bike if I didn't have a helmet on I would have been KOed for sure.

I would say for kids is good to get them to put a helmet on and set a good example by wearing one yourself.

Its up to folk if they ware them or not, of all the time I have worn one I only needed it once.